SIAM’S CALL TO U.N.

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27367, 4 June 1954, Page 11

SIAM’S CALL TO U.N.

Views Of Britain And India (Rec. 8 p.m.) NEW YORK, June 2. The Soviet Union and India today were reported to oppose early security council debate on the appeal by Siam for peace observers to watch the war crisis in South-east Asia. Both nations took the view that it would hinder the Geneva negotiations on Indo-China. Diplomatic sources at United Nations headquarters reported the Soviet opposition while an authoritative source in New Delhi disclosed the stand of the Indian Government, according to the American Associated Press. The Soviet Union is a member of the Security Council, but India is not. “The Siamese Government’s request to the United Nations Security Council to consider possible dangers to Siamese territory from the fighting in Indo-China plainly has come as a shock to the Indian Government and must have been an annoyance to the British Government,” says the diplomatic correspondent of “The Times.” “Indian distrust of the move presumably springs from the suspicion that the request was made at the instigation of the United States rather than from a spontaneous Siamese regard for the future security of the country.

“At the moment, the issue is of less immediate importance than the light it throws on the course of current British policy in South-east Asia. “Superficially, the British methods have resulted in one asset and one substantial loss—the winning of the confidence of South-east Asia and the creating of differences in British and American relations. “India, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon and, in a way, Indonesia have responded hearteningly to Mr Eden’s invitation to join in guaranteeing the Indo-China settlement. “There are however, still some differences with the United States on the significance of the Geneva Conference. “British patience has fashioned a link with Indian views, wftich is apparent in the continued presence of Mr Krishna Menon in Geneva, although the aims of the two countries may not be identical. “British Annoyance” “Siamese recourse to the United Nations has evoked British annoyance, but deep Indian distrust—a distinction that points to potential danger in British policy which have been recently noted. “South-east Asian opinion may be pleased to follow the British lead towards ending the war in Indo-China, and India so far has gone the farthest in offers of assistance to help in guaranteeing any future Indo-China settlement. “Some countries in the area may, however, if the war in Indo-China has ended, fail to see the need for the collective security arrangement , which Britain and the United States have agreed to consider. “Then much of the good work will

be undone. At the moment the Indian contribution may be of some assistance in ascertaining more exactly the intentions of the Chinese delegation in Geneva.

“Mr Molotov has given the impression of being more amenable than Mr Chou En-lai. This may be a studied performance, agreed to at the talks in Moscow which preceded the conference. It could be a fair reflection of the relations between China and Russia, in which case the assessment of the Chinese view would be the crux of the problem of a lasting settlement in the Far East.

“The discovery of this, however. Will be made more difficult if attention is deflected from Geneva to New York, with the possibility of old feuds returning to upset the delicate state of the negotiations. This apart, the British could hardly wish to deny the Siamese Government the chance of enchancing the future security of its borders. Presumably it is for this reason that the Foreign Office has gublicly expressed sympathy with the iamese request to the Security Council,” says the correspondent.